Clinical Characteristics, Etiology, and Initial Management Strategy of Newly Diagnosed Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Multicenter, Prospective Observational Cohort Study of 783 Patients.
arthroplasty infection
artificial joint infection
periprosthetic jo int infection
Journal
Open forum infectious diseases
ISSN: 2328-8957
Titre abrégé: Open Forum Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101637045
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
27
11
2019
accepted:
12
03
2020
entrez:
21
5
2020
pubmed:
21
5
2020
medline:
21
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery. Most observational studies of PJI are retrospective or single-center, and reported management approaches and outcomes vary widely. We hypothesized that there would be substantial heterogeneity in PJI management and that most PJIs would present as late acute infections occurring as a consequence of bloodstream infections. The Prosthetic joint Infection in Australia and New Zealand, Observational (PIANO) study is a prospective study at 27 hospitals. From July 2014 through December 2017, we enrolled all adults with a newly diagnosed PJI of a large joint. We collected data on demographics, microbiology, and surgical and antibiotic management over the first 3 months postpresentation. We enrolled 783 patients (427 knee, 323 hip, 25 shoulder, 6 elbow, and 2 ankle). The mode of presentation was late acute (>30 days postimplantation and <7 days of symptoms; 351, 45%), followed by early (≤30 days postimplantation; 196, 25%) and chronic (>30 days postimplantation with ≥30 days of symptoms; 148, 19%). Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and implant retention constituted the commonest initial management approach (565, 72%), but debridement was moderate or less in 142 (25%) and the polyethylene liner was not exchanged in 104 (23%). In contrast to most studies, late acute infection was the most common mode of presentation, likely reflecting hematogenous seeding. Management was heterogeneous, reflecting the poor evidence base and the need for randomized controlled trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery. Most observational studies of PJI are retrospective or single-center, and reported management approaches and outcomes vary widely. We hypothesized that there would be substantial heterogeneity in PJI management and that most PJIs would present as late acute infections occurring as a consequence of bloodstream infections.
METHODS
METHODS
The Prosthetic joint Infection in Australia and New Zealand, Observational (PIANO) study is a prospective study at 27 hospitals. From July 2014 through December 2017, we enrolled all adults with a newly diagnosed PJI of a large joint. We collected data on demographics, microbiology, and surgical and antibiotic management over the first 3 months postpresentation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We enrolled 783 patients (427 knee, 323 hip, 25 shoulder, 6 elbow, and 2 ankle). The mode of presentation was late acute (>30 days postimplantation and <7 days of symptoms; 351, 45%), followed by early (≤30 days postimplantation; 196, 25%) and chronic (>30 days postimplantation with ≥30 days of symptoms; 148, 19%). Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and implant retention constituted the commonest initial management approach (565, 72%), but debridement was moderate or less in 142 (25%) and the polyethylene liner was not exchanged in 104 (23%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In contrast to most studies, late acute infection was the most common mode of presentation, likely reflecting hematogenous seeding. Management was heterogeneous, reflecting the poor evidence base and the need for randomized controlled trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32432148
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa068
pii: ofaa068
pmc: PMC7224250
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ofaa068Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 1997 Aug;56(8):470-5
pubmed: 9306869
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Mar;139(3):295-303
pubmed: 30443674
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Apr;78(4):512-23
pubmed: 8609130
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(1):159-60
pubmed: 23537907
Acta Orthop. 2016 Aug;87(4):346-50
pubmed: 27348450
J Infect. 2018 Apr;76(4):328-334
pubmed: 29395369
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Mar;25(3):353-358
pubmed: 29803842
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Jun;63(6):1264-71
pubmed: 19336454
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1
pubmed: 22554729
Int Orthop. 2015 Sep;39(9):1785-91
pubmed: 26138772
Bone Joint J. 2017 Nov;99-B(11):1458-1466
pubmed: 29092984
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 Mar;65(3):569-75
pubmed: 20053693
J Infect. 2018 Dec;77(6):479-488
pubmed: 30205122
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Feb;34(2S):S1-S2
pubmed: 30343969
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Aug;22(8):732.e1-8
pubmed: 27181408
JAMA. 1998 May 20;279(19):1537-41
pubmed: 9605897
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Dec;16(12):1789-95
pubmed: 21077986
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Oct 15;49(8):1175-84
pubmed: 19739972
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 May;56(5):2386-91
pubmed: 22314530
N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 20;361(8):787-94
pubmed: 19692690